Communities

IET Communities provide like-minded people with opportunities to share ideas, collaborate, learn and network. With more than 100 Local and Technical Networks around the world, you can feel confident of finding a community that suits your interests.

Hello Geoff,
There are still a few open points from our discussions last week.

We were looking at the validity in general of complex multivariable predictive models, did you follow the Dan McCarn link and paper?

You also said: ". There are indeed many natural cycles from as little as 7 years to cycles which are more like 125,000 years. What matters here is that climate models are clearly showing that what is occuring now cannot be explained without factoring in the man made element."

This can be put another way, 'What is occurring now can be explained by factoring in a manmade element'. It may also be explained by constructive interference between the various cycles, many of which are not yet very well understood. As far as I can find out the current models do not appear to use the longer time frame cycles that are believed to be responsible for the ice ages.

Have you found any links to validated predictions that the current models have made?

I also saw you mention George Monbiot. He is a man who made the interesting discovery last year that a cause he strongly believed in and promoted was based on bad or non-existent science supported by circular peer reviewing.

If you think I am negligent in my lack of replies to your points in detail, I would like to point out that I can't devote the time to the issue that you appear to, I certainly have an issue with someone who seems to take his view exclusively from "skeptical science". Note my stuff is multi-sourced.

Regards

Dave

Dave, not sure what you mean by multi-sourced, but the link you give is to a right-wing magazine article that certainly isn't multi-sourced. It's a point of view that doesn't give any sources or references.

It continues to make exagerated assertions about Climagegate (remember that the science of CRU was not called into question, and most of the allegations were shown to be exagerated of wrong) as though the allegations apply to all climate science. It wrongly characterises climate science so that he can then criticise it. You know the trick: incorrectly ascribe something wrong and silly to your apponent so you can show they're wrong and silly.

Originally posted by: westonpa"Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution" - The Shirky Principle

Two points here:
1) Are you seriously suggesting that the Met Office sees itself as the solution to climate change? Let's be clear, the Met Office staff get paid whatever their studies show. (And please don't reply by saying that the Daily Mail says that the Met Office says that climate change doesn't exist! The MO is somewhat unhappy about the DM saying this, as they have stated on their website.)
2) The Shirky Principle relates to a very different set of problems, I have not seen any suggestion that this relates to expert knowledge (I think he has far more sense than that!). A million monkeys will not idenify a cause of cancer quicker than 10 experts in the field.

@amillar
Call me a cynic, but I've yet to come across anybody or any institution delivering research results that will take away the basis of their funding stream. This, of course, applies to both sides of the 'debate'.

On another point; can anyone point me to a proper scientific test of a climate model, i.e. a falsifiable prediction made and subsequently verified without any fudging? Let's say a 10-year temperatrure rise (so not too far ahead) with the uncertainty range defined along with the prediction. Or alternatively, a model that was published and therefore beyond tweaking which, in retrospect, was able to match actual events when updated with the inputs as they actually happened (since you can't control the experimental conditions)?

BTW I'm of the view that our climate probably is changing, probably warming. I'm not sure how much we're contributing to it although we probably are. I'm also not sure how bad it is on a global scale if it's warming - probably good for some and bad for others.

One thing that seems reasonably certain: the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. This presumably means that all of this carbon has been in the atmospheric cycle in the past (presumably in the Carboniferous era) and the evidence of our, and other species, presence indicates that life on the planet survived, although we certainly might not like what was involved in that.

-------------------------
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Originally posted by: StewartTaylorCall me a cynic, but I've yet to come across anybody or any institution delivering research results that will take away the basis of their funding stream. This, of course, applies to both sides of the 'debate'.

If the Met Office could produce results that showed that climate change had ended / never existed / was not man-made they would make an absolute fortune in funding!! Because that is the answer that every Government, not to mention every major energy producer and user, wants to hear. Climate change is a right pain in the backside, it slows economies down, it makes it harder to make money from energy (yes, really), it makes it a right pig to design and sell energy using products - i.e. pretty much everything. Nobody wants it to exist. (If you want to make money it's still rather better to become chief exec of an oil company than chief exec of a solar / wind power company...to put it mildly!!).

There are very good reasons why, despite the science being known about since the 1970s, practically nothing has yet happened to combat climate change. And it's not do with the science, it's because no-one is going to come out of it very well...

Call me a cynic, but I've yet to come across anybody or any institution delivering research results that will take away the basis of their funding stream. This, of course, applies to both sides of the 'debate'.

If the Met Office could produce results that showed that climate change had ended / never existed / was not man-made they would make an absolute fortune in funding!! Because that is the answer that every Government, not to mention every major energy producer and user, wants to hear. Climate change is a right pain in the backside, it slows economies down, it makes it harder to make money from energy (yes, really), it makes it a right pig to design and sell energy using products - i.e. pretty much everything. Nobody wants it to exist. (If you want to make money it's still rather better to become chief exec of an oil company than chief exec of a solar / wind power company...to put it mildly!!).

There are very good reasons why, despite the science being known about since the 1970s, practically nothing has yet happened to combat climate change. And it's not do with the science, it's because no-one is going to come out of it very well...

Couldn't agree more. A changing climate means massive changes to the way we live: either to avoid it or to adapt to it. This severely limits the economy.

Who could possibly be looking forward to such changes?

I have been trying to follow this for some time, and the separate but related issue of peak oil, and not seen any new evidence to suggest that climate change is a myth.

In fact the recent evidence according to publications such as Nature seems to suggest that the climate change science is worse than previously suggested.

Nothing is proven one way or the other but that does not mean we can ignore the issue. As engineers our normal response would be to try and reduce the number of variables but since its neither practical, nor ethical, to eliminate humans from the planet its difficult to see how conclusive proof can be seen either way.

We live in a society that rewards short term gains, even at the expense of long term losses. If a politician makes a correct but unpopular decision they don't get re-elected. If a CEO makes a decision that significantly reduces this years profits the share holders may demand resignation.

A simple example of this would be air travel. If carbon dioxide is as big a problem as suggested then it makes sense to cut air flights. Who would vote for the politician who said "you can forget foreign holidays"

There is a big incentive for people to believe climate change is not an issue even if the evidence is to the contrary.

Let's try to forget all of that nonsense about 1998. "A few points remain" ... well actually there are rather a lot of busted myths (unless you would like to try to defend them?)

Originally posted by: rogerbryantWe were looking at the validity in general of complex multivariable predictive models, did you follow the Dan McCarn link and paper?

Dan McCarn? The Uranium Geologist (mining and fossil fuels always seem to crop up)? Since we've commented on everything that has been presented then it will have been covered.

Originally posted by: rogerbryantYou also said: ". There are indeed many natural cycles from as little as 7 years to cycles which are more like 125,000 years. What matters here is that climate models are clearly showing that what is occuring now cannot be explained without factoring in the man made element."

This can be put another way, 'What is occurring now can be explained by factoring in a manmade element'. It may also be explained by constructive interference between the various cycles, many of which are not yet very well understood. As far as I can find out the current models do not appear to use the longer time frame cycles that are believed to be responsible for the ice ages.

Have you found any links to validated predictions that the current models have made?

Regarding the logic of the statement regarding "factoring in", both work for me. Regarding constructive interference, that's an interesting point, but where is it made by a climate scientist? It may well be true, but how significant is it in relation to other factors?

Regarding ice ages, the models are covering a time period which already seems to be too long for many people, ie. to the end of the century. In that time frame they already predic potential catastrophe. The next ice age wouldn't be anywhere near that time frame so I don't see how that can be very significant.

I've made comment on the models above, and the detail has not been challenged. Bearing in mind that I'm not actually a climate scientist, and although I've worked on software systems covering most things, AI and climate models are 2 notable exceptions. I guess a number of people might actually be interested some more on the models:
How reliable are climate models? -- that page contains lots of explanatory graphs and links to sources, including:

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). More on predicting the future...

Do we know enough to act?
Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.

Originally posted by: rogerbryantI also saw you mention George Monbiot. He is a man who made the interesting discovery last year that a cause he strongly believed in and promoted was based on bad or non-existent science supported by circular peer reviewing.

Regarding the George Monbiot discovery, I seem to have read more recently that even very low levels of radiation can be harmful.., but that's another topic, and various people are already complaining that they don't have time for the current breadth of points on this thread. There are however some interesting quotes on that page:

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid.

Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIETGeorge Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticismsourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

One thing that seems reasonably certain: the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels. This presumably means that all of this carbon has been in the atmospheric cycle in the past (presumably in the Carboniferous era) and the evidence of our, and other species, presence indicates that life on the planet survived, although we certainly might not like what was involved in that.

This is certainly true. The atmosphere has contained much more CO2 and been hotter: it has also had much less and been much colder too.

I don't think anyone here seriously thinks the climate is likely in the short to medium term to change so much that all life is extinguished. If the climate changes slowly enough individual species can adapt. If it changes too fast however some species will not be able to adapt quickly enough and that is the problem.

There has been life on the planet for at least 4300 million years but that does not mean that, had we already evolved, we could have survived all this time.

The climate is changing. The rate at which its changing appears to be speeding up. In the past this has lead to extinction of a number of species. It's also lead to others evolving. Who is to say we can adapt quickly enough?

Has the case for people being responsible for climate change been proven?

That depends on your standard of proof.

If you want "beyond all reasonable doubt" then maybe not. Depends on what level of doubt you feel is reasonable. Though I still thing it's more likely that I will win the lottery this week than us not being significantly responsible: and I don't play the lottery.

If you are prepared to take "on the balance of probabilities" then we are guilty as charged.

Is there enough evidence that we should be preparing for the worst?
Definitely.

Can we make changes to avoid further change?
Probably not the Climate balance has already changed.

Can we make changes that will minimise the effect?
Almost certainly but only if we stop burying our heads in the sand and get on with fixing the problems.

Someone has read both sides of the data and has seen rubbish and mis representation on both sides. There is nothing wrong with a reasonable approach to conserving or improving our way of life but let's not let that stand in the way of a good debate.

Regards.

You are of course the one who posted almost the entire Watt's site (I note Dave is still at it ). I answered your points, but you chose not to defend them (actually I appreciate that they are indefensable and hence a real challenge). Clearly you don't understand the concept of a debate. If you have seen rubbish and mis-representation on both 'sides' then surely you would realise that perpetuating it isn't appropriate on a professional forum? The truth is that there are not actually 2 'sides', that is to give far too much weight to the few remaining deniers, and the balance question with regards deniers has long since been recognised as faulty thinking.

Regards

First, I'm an engineer and I do not take sides when I'm presented with real world data. Those damm customers will find you out if you have a problem in the product.
If you want balance and objective debate don't assert that there is necessarily polarisation. Statements of faith such as labeling your opponents as 'deniers' is the real unprofessional action.
I'm entered into the debate because I see lunacy in the faith in some physics that is nonsense.
Most who know me will not accuse me of 'faulty ' thinking. I think you have stepped out of engineering into political dogma. Therefore the debate is entirely relevent to the professional media.

If you think I am negligent in my lack of replies to your points in detail, I would like to point out that I can't devote the time to the issue that you appear to, I certainly have an issue with someone who seems to take his view exclusively from "skeptical science". Note my stuff is multi-sourced.

Regards

Dave

Dave, not sure what you mean by multi-sourced, but the link you give is to a right-wing magazine article that certainly isn't multi-sourced. It's a point of view that doesn't give any sources or references.

It continues to make exagerated assertions about Climagegate (remember that the science of CRU was not called into question, and most of the allegations were shown to be exagerated of wrong) as though the allegations apply to all climate science. It wrongly characterises climate science so that he can then criticise it. You know the trick: incorrectly ascribe something wrong and silly to your apponent so you can show they're wrong and silly.

It adds nothing to the science of the debate.

I am trying to present a spectrum of opinion (I couldn't see anything party political in the Aussie article), don't you consider that as more important than asserting a certainty in this debate about a complex chaotic system?
We are in the realm of debate because nothing has or most likely cannot be verified.

I am trying to present a spectrum of opinion (I couldn't see anything party political in the Aussie article), don't you consider that as more important than asserting a certainty in this debate about a complex chaotic system?

We are in the realm of debate because nothing has or most likely cannot be verified.

Dave,

You may be correct that there does not appear to be anything within this article that appears to be party political, but it you were deliberately trying to confuse the issue would you want to announce the fact first. The political allegiances of the magazine that published this article are well known and its well to the right. In much the same way as the Daily Mail in the UK it pushes its own agenda and chooses to articles to publish that will forward that agenda.

This does not mean that its impossible for left wing political publications to be similarly blinkered but it does mean you have to take what's said with a pinch of salt. The Guardian in the UK for example is well known for its left leanings and while I personally think it does a better job of separating fact from opinion than some other publications you would be a fool to trust this as you only source on news either.

Looking at the detail of what is actually said in this article it is full of misinformation. It suggests that we don't know the planet is getting hotter -- we do. It suggests that if it is then it could be down to the sun -- it couldn't. Ignoring all other effects taking into account the orbit of the earth, solar activity and nothing else the earth should be cooling -- it isn't.

Can we please stop trying to argue this based on which has the largest group of followers. As I have said in a previous post this is not a matter of the democracy. Unless we make changes to the way we act the earth will do whatever it will do whether we vote for or against. It does not care.

The only significance of the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that we are having a significant effect on the climate -- and this is a fact -- is that they are studying the effects and so are looking at the data.

Scientists have been wrong in the past and almost certainly will be again but that does not mean we can ignore science. Without science we would all be out of a job. The scientists look at (bits of) the world to understand how things are. We use this information to develop products and services we can sell.

When scientists find a pattern they suggest a theory. This theory is used to make predictions. If these predictions are proven correct the theory is supported if not the theory is wrong and, if it can't be modified to correct for this error, thrown out.

I really want to see evidence to reject climate change but so far nobody here has provided any evidence to back up that claim.

The entire question seems to be wrong here:

We are being asked to prove beyond any doubt that that man is responsible for changes to the climate.

Given the consequences of coming to the wrong conclusion perhaps the task should be reversed

I am trying to present a spectrum of opinion (I couldn't see anything party political in the Aussie article), don't you consider that as more important than asserting a certainty in this debate about a complex chaotic system?

We are in the realm of debate because nothing has or most likely cannot be verified.

Dave,

You may be correct that there does not appear to be anything within this article that appears to be party political, but it you were deliberately trying to confuse the issue would you want to announce the fact first. The political allegiances of the magazine that published this article are well known and its well to the right. In much the same way as the Daily Mail in the UK it pushes its own agenda and chooses to articles to publish that will forward that agenda.

This does not mean that its impossible for left wing political publications to be similarly blinkered but it does mean you have to take what's said with a pinch of salt. The Guardian in the UK for example is well known for its left leanings and while I personally think it does a better job of separating fact from opinion than some other publications you would be a fool to trust this as you only source on news either.

Looking at the detail of what is actually said in this article it is full of misinformation. It suggests that we don't know the planet is getting hotter -- we do. It suggests that if it is then it could be down to the sun -- it couldn't. Ignoring all other effects taking into account the orbit of the earth, solar activity and nothing else the earth should be cooling -- it isn't.

Can we please stop trying to argue this based on which has the largest group of followers. As I have said in a previous post this is not a matter of the democracy. Unless we make changes to the way we act the earth will do whatever it will do whether we vote for or against. It does not care.

The only significance of the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that we are having a significant effect on the climate -- and this is a fact -- is that they are studying the effects and so are looking at the data.

Scientists have been wrong in the past and almost certainly will be again but that does not mean we can ignore science. Without science we would all be out of a job. The scientists look at (bits of) the world to understand how things are. We use this information to develop products and services we can sell.

When scientists find a pattern they suggest a theory. This theory is used to make predictions. If these predictions are proven correct the theory is supported if not the theory is wrong and, if it can't be modified to correct for this error, thrown out.

I really want to see evidence to reject climate change but so far nobody here has provided any evidence to back up that claim.

The entire question seems to be wrong here:

We are being asked to prove beyond any doubt that that man is responsible for changes to the climate.

Given the consequences of coming to the wrong conclusion perhaps the task should be reversed

Prove that man is not changing the climate.

It is self evident that man changes the environment just as every other dynamic process on earth living or otherwise. The catastrophic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is just that.
The test is empirical evidence and it is the responsible that will challenge something that is in no way proven. You cannot prove what you can't measure i.e. the future. Economists seem to suffer the same afflictions as so called climate scientists.

It is self evident that man changes the environment just as every other dynamic process on earth living or otherwise. The catastrophic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is just that.

So you are are now agreeing with Geoff, Simon and myself?. The climate is changing as a direct result of human action.

You are just not convinced it will necessarily be a change for the worse. Is this your belief?

I am not certain it will be worse, though I fear it might be. Each time the climate has changed in the past its led to changes in the species balance: some have reduced in number (or even gone extinct) others have expanded and often new ones have evolved. Given that does it not make sense to be cautious and take steps to minimise the changes? The new climate may suit humans better but it also may not.

The test is empirical evidence and it is the responsible that will challenge something that is in no way proven. You cannot prove what you can't measure i.e. the future. Economists seem to suffer the same afflictions as so called climate scientists.

True you can't prove many things in science or elsewhere for that matter. You can however look at the evidence and make reasoned predictions.

I have a prototype on my bench at the moment with a TO-92 transistor that has a case temperature of 95C. I can't prove it will fail. I have been testing the unit for a week and it hasn't failed yet. I still intend to change the design to reduce its power dissipation though.

We only have one earth so we can't try it both ways and see which works better so since we have a climate that works for us does it not make sense to try and keep the climate as it is?

There are many unconvinced people out there:

Not relevant.

I'm sure over a few of these we could find things we agree upon that others would not be convinced are correct. I am also sure we would find things we don't agree on too.

The point is an opinion does not become true or false based on how many supporters or detractors it has. The opinion is either true or false. Find new evidence that agrees with the opinion and its supported, but not proven. Find evidence to contradict it then, unless there is a problem with that evidence, the opinion is disproved.

It is self evident that man changes the environment just as every other dynamic process on earth living or otherwise. The catastrophic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is just that.

So you are are now agreeing with Geoff, Simon and myself?. The climate is changing as a direct result of human action.

You are just not convinced it will necessarily be a change for the worse. Is this your belief?

I am not certain it will be worse, though I fear it might be. Each time the climate has changed in the past its led to changes in the species balance: some have reduced in number (or even gone extinct) others have expanded and often new ones have evolved. Given that does it not make sense to be cautious and take steps to minimise the changes? The new climate may suit humans better but it also may not.

The test is empirical evidence and it is the responsible that will challenge something that is in no way proven. You cannot prove what you can't measure i.e. the future. Economists seem to suffer the same afflictions as so called climate scientists.

True you can't prove many things in science or elsewhere for that matter. You can however look at the evidence and make reasoned predictions.

I have a prototype on my bench at the moment with a TO-92 transistor that has a case temperature of 95C. I can't prove it will fail. I have been testing the unit for a week and it hasn't failed yet. I still intend to change the design to reduce its power dissipation though.

We only have one earth so we can't try it both ways and see which works better so since we have a climate that works for us does it not make sense to try and keep the climate as it is?

There are many unconvinced people out there:

Not relevant.

I'm sure over a few of these we could find things we agree upon that others would not be convinced are correct. I am also sure we would find things we don't agree on too.

The point is an opinion does not become true or false based on how many supporters or detractors it has. The opinion is either true or false. Find new evidence that agrees with the opinion and its supported, but not proven. Find evidence to contradict it then, unless there is a problem with that evidence, the opinion is disproved.

When I poped into the world in 1965 I probably didn't realise that I might have an effect on it. Today I know I have effect on the earth, I just think that within non-toxic restraints it is minimal even when integrated across the entire population.
Please understand the difference between environment change and climate change. You could of course advocate taxing ants and dung beatles for modifying the environment for their purposes.
Having a nice house to live in is what we all want, that changes the environment as does the engineering that goes with it.

I would be a bit worried if you are hitting 92 Celcius without good reason in a TO -92. Have you considered more efficient solutions?

Leaded semis are a bit old fashioned in any case, ever heard of surface mount?

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
When I popped into the world in 1965 I probably didn't realise that I might have an effect on it. Today I know I have effect on the earth, I just think that within non-toxic restraints it is minimal even when integrated across the entire population.
Please understand the difference between environment change and climate change. You could of course advocate taxing ants and dung beatles for modifying the environment for their purposes.

Thanks for the clarification. The climate is an important part of the environment but you are correct it is possible to change the environment without changing the climate. I believe that there is clear evidence that the climate is changing and a lot to suggest that humans are a large part in causing this. You clearly don't agree.

I would be a bit worried if you are hitting 92 Celsius without good reason in a TO -92. Have you considered more efficient solutions?

I was giving this as a current example confirming that you can't always predict the future but as you have agreed with me, from this example, it shows that it can be prudent when examining the evidence. Same is true for the climate.
I know why the transistor is getting too hot and when I make the modifications on Monday that I have already worked out it will run much cooler.

Originally posted by: amillarTwo points here:
1) Are you seriously suggesting that the Met Office sees itself as the solution to climate change?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us "This plays a vital role in providing evidence to support climate predictions which show the planet is now locked into at least 2 °C of warming and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required to ensure this does not rise further for future generations. With this in mind, we have been providing tailored advice and services for a range of clients to help them begin adapting to the consequences of climate change. This has included projects focusing on defence, transport, energy, water supply, defence, flooding, health, and a host of other issues. We will continue to use our expertise to further understanding of climate change, as well as offering advice on how to mitigate the risks and adapt to its consequences."

That seems to suggest that they see themselves as some part of the solution. With regards to the point about the Daily Mail I do not believe that any sensible person denies that climate change exists, the climate changes in every second of every day.....it is a fact.

A million monkeys will not idenify a cause of cancer quicker than 10 experts in the field.

Not sure what indenify means, guess I will have to ask a monkey.

A million monkeys will not be dropping A bombs on their own race or else exterminating millions of them or else launching wars in which 1000's die, based on mis representation of data/evidence. My point? We seem to be suggesting that we humans are sending the climate over the edge, so to speak, and last I heard the monkeys were not the cause......so let's not get above our station and think we are so 'expert' and the monkeys are not.

"What will happen when the volcano on La Palma collapses? Scientists predict that it will generate a wave that will be almost inconceivably destructive, far bigger than anything ever witnessed in modern times."

Dr Wynn added, "The mega-tsunami scenario currently being aired in the media is a hypothetical 'worst case', and is largely based upon speculative computer models of landslide motion and tsunami generation.

Sounds rather familiar, maybe software engineers could instead work on sorting out the software and leave the maths to the 'experts' in that field.

I was recently speaking with a couple who are members of 'Friends of the Earth' and they said they were not going to have children because their children would only otherwise add to the problem because they would use the Earth's resources. Now I can respect their point of view because they are prepared to make a sacrifice for what they believe in. I do not agree with their choice however it is theirs to make so I respect it. The real issue is that human population growth is not sustainable in the long term and yet it going to be somewhat difficult for those who have already had their children and built up their wealth and thus used their plenty of the Earth's resources to suddenly tell the next generation, i.e., their children, they cannot have the same things. Hence we just carry on growing our population and just prolonging dealing with the elephant in the room, i.e., ourselves. How many wind turbines are going to be needed if the population grows to 14 billion?

"All of us want a viable, sustainable global home. This can be accomplished only if the wealthier of us reduce our ecological footprint to truly sustainable levels and, if all of us begin now to humanely and dramatically reduce our human numbers."

Many see [global warming] as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don't curb our greenhouse gas emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could change, hurricanes could become more frequent. . . . On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists' measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming. In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios."

Where do you think the inbetween is?

"Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish." Richard S. Lindzen (scientist)

"Drs. Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, say that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have nothing but positive results."

"Scientists do not dispute the fact that plant life thrives on carbon dioxide. What they disagree about is how much is too much."

"So how did the global-warming predictions fared in the past? Let us look at the predictions made in 1990: they predicted an increase in temperature of 0.3C per decade, with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade. Yet less than 0.2C of warming per decade was observed. To be blunt, they got it flat wrong."

"If your predictions do not pan out, then something is wrong in your understanding."

"Yet what did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change state in its 2007 report?

By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%."

"The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for "carbon credits". As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote. The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, "agricultural production will more than double by 2020?. (The Telegraph, 2010)

That is bad science."

Well said, and that was the so called experts the IPCC....yet another alarmist prediction based on bad science. Still the must be correct after all they are the IPCC. Maybe we need to instead listen to a panel of monkeys because at least they would not be putting out alarmist propoganda based on bad science.

"As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth."

Global cooling. Brrrr.

Still, no need to worry because more coal is going to get burned and shale gas will soon be adding to the mix in ever increasing quantities. If you actually think yourself, Geoff, the IPCC or UN etc., are going to stop it then think again because the IPCC and co shot their bolt when they mis represented data and by the time they are ever treated with any credibility again we will either be in 'global warming' or 'global cooling'. Think about that 3rd runway at Heathrow which was not going to happen due to 'climate change' concerns (http://www.campaigncc.org/heathrow.shtml), have you noticed how that is now back on the agenda? http://www.guardian.co.uk/busi...ow-runway-plans

Still we can stick up a couple of wind turbines to balance the equation.

I was so happy to read that "man" has (or has not) been the cause of climate change. It also came as quite a shock that a periodical such as the one you edit would continue to use gender-specific terms. In this case, we females are happy to pass along the blame (or kudos) to man.

"Many see [global warming] as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don't curb our greenhouse gas emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could change, hurricanes could become more frequent. . . . On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists' measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming. In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios."

Where do you think the inbetween is?

"Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish." Richard S. Lindzen (scientist)

"Drs. Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, say that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have nothing but positive results."

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is one of Mother Jones magazine's 2009 global warming skeptic "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial"[1]. Founded in 1998 by members of the Idso family, its income has increased in recent years.

The Center reported income of $25,449 for 2003 [6]; this could be[7] inconsistent with Exxon's reported 2003 donation of $40,000 plus Sarah Scaife Foundation's 2003 donation of $50,000.

It should be noted that, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, October 26, 2006[7]

* The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
* The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
* The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
* The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003

Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC.

Where do you think the inbetween is? We I'm stuck fast to my keyboard at home, and nowhere near Hawaii or ever likely to be. Similarly the climate is tracking the worst case IPCC predictions, and nowhere near anything remotely good.

Originally posted by: geoffbennthe World Bank summary of existing research now suggests that rather than restricting temperature rises to 2 degrees C (ie. "dangerous climate change"), we are on track for 4 degrees C (who knows what that'll be called..., but not quite Dante's Inferno).

Humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are breaking new records every year. Hence we're on a path towards 4-degree global warming probably as soon as by the end of this century. This would mean a world of risks beyond the experience of our civilization -- including heat waves, especially in the tropics, a sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people, and regional yield failures impacting global food security. ... "If we venture far beyond the 2-degree guardrail, towards 4 degrees, we risk crossing tipping points in the Earth system." ... an irreversible process that could start soon

Don't forget that the excess CO2 will still acidify the oceans, and (unilateral) geo-engineering could increase droughts with resultant effects on food security, and conflict...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIETGeorge Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticismsourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Originally posted by: westonpaIf want something to worry about then worry about the landslip which will take place at sometime in the Canary Islands and wipe out millions.

No, if I want something to worry about I will worry about my future career, the fact that my daughter is wasting her life away mooning over a deeply boring boyfriend, and that my son spends far too much time playing computer games. These are things I can (nearly ) do something about.

I will, however,continue to get peeved over the fact that many people would rather invent conspiracy (or incompetance) theories than have to admit that there is a problem with the climate (or any other inconvenient truths). But since there is a vanishingly small amount that I can do about it (and since, fortunately, plently of much more qualified people than I are doing something about it) I'll stick to my own problems.

A million monkeys will not identify a cause of cancer quicker than 10 experts in the field.

A million monkeys will not be dropping A bombs on their own race or else exterminating millions of them or else launching wars in which 1000's die, based on mis representation of data/evidence. My point? We seem to be suggesting that we humans are sending the climate over the edge, so to speak, and last I heard the monkeys were not the cause......so let's not get above our station and think we are so 'expert' and the monkeys are not.

Errr...what???

The reason we are sending the climate over the edge is precisely because we did act like a million monkeys and just did stuff fairly randomly rather than take any notice of those who identified the problem nearly 40 years ago. That was the initial problem. But now to actively work to suppress or trivialise the evidence of man-made climate change is surely to do exactly what you are suggesting re launching wars?